(Reuters) - Increasing the minimum price of alcohol by 10 percent can lead to immediate and significant drops in drink-related deaths and may also have long-term beneficial health effects, according to a study published on Thursday.

Canadian researchers found that deaths caused by alcohol between 2002 and 2009 in the western province of British Columbia dropped when the minimum alcohol price was increased, while alcohol-related deaths rose when more private alcohol stores were opened.

The findings will be keenly scrutinized by alcohol policy makers, particularly in Britain where the government plans to introduce a minimum price on alcohol to try to clamp down on binge drinking and anti-social behavior. The United States does not currently set a minimum alcohol price.

"This study adds to the scientific evidence that, despite popular opinion to the contrary, even the heaviest drinkers reduce their consumption when minimum alcohol prices increase," said Tim Stockwell of the University of Victoria's Center for Addictions Research of British Columbia, who led the study.

John Holmes of the alcohol research group at Britain's University of Sheffield said Stockwell's study was a major contribution to evidence about minimum alcohol pricing and gave a "strong indication that the policy has reduced the consumption levels of those drinking at hazardous and harmful levels."

Yes , raising the price of Cocaine stops drug abuse. People will drink no matter what the price.

I agree, over here they have a huge tax on alcohol, hasn't stopped binge drinking here. I currently pay $33 au for my scotch (700ml bottle), only thing that has cut my intake was the health issues it caused. Hasn't stopped me from drinking though.

All raising prices would do is **** me off. I don't have an alcohol problem. I like to drink occasionally to relax and socialize, and I do not have a lot of money to be doing that with as it is. If they made it harder that might potentially make it unfeasible to do it at all, because I wouldn't be able to buy enough to make the experience worth it. And why the **** should I have to pay more just because they're trying to curb alcohol use? I'm an adult, responsible for my own alcohol use. If other people can't drink a responsible amount that's not my problem, and it's not the government's problem, it's their problem. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and we have enough Big Brother bull**** going on in this country already. Plus I have no doubt they would try to do it to increase revenue and nothing more. The government doesn't give a **** about the welfare of the people, they only want to keep us in line and leech as much money from us as they can.

All raising prices would do is **** me off. I don't have an alcohol problem. I like to drink occasionally to relax and socialize, and I do not have a lot of money to be doing that with as it is. If they made it harder that might potentially make it unfeasible to do it at all, because I wouldn't be able to buy enough to make the experience worth it. And why the **** should I have to pay more just because they're trying to curb alcohol use? I'm an adult, responsible for my own alcohol use. If other people can't drink a responsible amount that's not my problem, and it's not the government's problem, it's their problem. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and we have enough Big Brother bull**** going on in this country already.

10% wouldn't stop you from drinking enough to make the experience worth it, its barely worth it in the first place for 10%

£2.60~ for a pint, after increase, £2.86

8 Pints, after increase it will cost £2.08 more than before

If they want to help curb alcohol problems, remove ALL of the cheap crap from the local corner shops, supermarkets etc, the 3 litres of 7.5% cider for £3.00, Lambrini and all that rubbish that people drink to get loaded before going out

All raising prices would do is **** me off. I don't have an alcohol problem. I like to drink occasionally to relax and socialize, and I do not have a lot of money to be doing that with as it is. If they made it harder that might potentially make it unfeasible to do it at all, because I wouldn't be able to buy enough to make the experience worth it. And why the **** should I have to pay more just because they're trying to curb alcohol use? I'm an adult, responsible for my own alcohol use. If other people can't drink a responsible amount that's not my problem, and it's not the government's problem, it's their problem. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and we have enough Big Brother bull**** going on in this country already. Plus I have no doubt they would try to do it to increase revenue and nothing more. The government doesn't give a **** about the welfare of the people, they only want to keep us in line and leech as much money from us as they can.

While I definitely agree that adults should be made responsible for their actions, not the government, I subscribe to the stronger side of this notion: That kids are utterly stupid when it comes to alcohol. So I sort of agree with raising the price.

If they wanted to make an actual impact, removing the half gallons (1.75L) of things like Heaven Hill and McCormick that are only $10 for a ridiculous amount of alcohol, would be the smarter choice.EDIT: Err, what Detection said.

(Reuters) - Increasing the minimum price of alcohol by 10 percent can lead to immediate and significant drops in drink-related deaths and may also have long-term beneficial health effects, according to a study published on Thursday.

Canadian researchers found that deaths caused by alcohol between 2002 and 2009 in the western province of British Columbia dropped when the minimum alcohol price was increased, while alcohol-related deaths rose when more private alcohol stores were opened.

The findings will be keenly scrutinized by alcohol policy makers, particularly in Britain where the government plans to introduce a minimum price on alcohol to try to clamp down on binge drinking and anti-social behavior. The United States does not currently set a minimum alcohol price.

"This study adds to the scientific evidence that, despite popular opinion to the contrary, even the heaviest drinkers reduce their consumption when minimum alcohol prices increase," said Tim Stockwell of the University of Victoria's Center for Addictions Research of British Columbia, who led the study.

John Holmes of the alcohol research group at Britain's University of Sheffield said Stockwell's study was a major contribution to evidence about minimum alcohol pricing and gave a "strong indication that the policy has reduced the consumption levels of those drinking at hazardous and harmful levels."

It's called a backdoor attack - raise the price of the product, and fewer folks will buy it.

Maryland did the same thing with tobacco farming - they made it prohibitive to do (for farmers - Maryland used to be the second-largest source of tobacco for smoking in the United States - second only to North Carolina and ahead of Virginia), and as a result, farms have largely become precursors to subdivisions in southern Maryland and even the Eastern Shore. As much as some would LOVE to blame the General Assembly (Maryland's State House), the assault started from the Governor's Mansion - and with former Governor Parris N. Glendening. His administration was behind the raising of both tobacco and alcohol taxes in the state as well - same reasoning. (Despite claiming it was to offset Medicare/Medicaid cost increases, the REAL purpose was to reduce sales of both products.